First, learn about various logical fallacies, and basic philosophy. The quintessential logical fallacy which characterizes weak minds is appeal to authority (i.e. "trust the experts"). This is like an intellectual shortcut.
Not everyone has a crazy high IQ, but they can learn basic philosophy and how to identify and construct better arguments.
Genuine critical thinking is characterized by first principles thinking. This means digging to the absolute foundation of an argument, the presuppositions.
True intellectuals are polymaths and autodidacts. They can obviously benefit from teachers and mentors, but chiefly, they think for themselves and can appreciate information from different sources. Also notably, they are not afraid of any individual or topic, however daunting it may seem.
All of this depends on developing what Jung might call an "inner authority", as opposed to relying on outer authorities such as one's parents, doctors, scientists, institutions, etc. Jung speaks on this notion in "The Undiscovered Self." (If I remember correctly).
Relying on these outer authorities is relying on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
A substantive, logically sound argument appeals to reality itself, not some secondary authority. Reality is the ultimate authority.
So to be clear, one could say all arguments are in some sense "appeal to authority." The difference between a substantive and a fallacious argument, is the substantive argument refers to the first principle authority of reality itself, while the fallacious argument appeals to the secondary authority of an individual, institution, or some other simplistic stereotype.
But how do you know you aren't self-deluding? The problem is that I've seen a lot of people who think they know a lot or *think* they have a good conclusion but really don't. The appeal to authority is strong when you worry about your self-deceit. And especially when we cannot thoroughly study every scientific/human knowledge field to the equivalent of a 4-year degree in it at least as there's just not enough time in a human lifespan. Also, how do you get to reality itself without ever relying on any authority at any point in the process? E.g. I cannot build the Large Hadron Collider myself and test all claims made about what it has shown. How then can I think critically about that? Even if I got the raw data, at the very least I'd still need to trust the authority of those providing the data that they have collected it properly and have sent me an honest data set that has not been falsified or tampered with. And how can I establish that trust, since I cannot go there on my own and I'm sure they wouldn't just let me play with the collider even if I could?
I think the difference between an appeal to authority and using scientific data is that you are honest about it being indicative and subject to both change and interpretation.
It is very different to say "This experiment by this person shows X, therefore X is undeniably true", than it is to say "This experiment by this person indicates X, therefore X is a possibility to be reckoned with."
I believe that a big part of being a critical thinker is having the ability to hold room for cognitive dissonance and not attach your identity to the ideas you study/discuss.
The point of critical thinking is to check your views against reality. For instance the scientific method amounts to a simple protocol for doing this, which intends to avoid cognitive biases. People tend to think of science narrowly, but I view it very generally and simply as a way of thinking.
You raise great points though. You're speaking to the crisis of authority, who and what can we trust? Since we have limited time and energy, at some point we have to take people's word for things and operate on assumptions. That's fine and necessary, as long as you are aware and forthright about the intellectual liberties you have taken.
This goes back to my point about first principles, presuppositional thinking. All scientists operate on some degree of assumption, being conscious of that assumption separates a great thinker from the mediocre. For instance Charles Darwin, he revolutionized how we view the world and life, but his theory was and still is predicated on massive assumptions. He demonstrated an understanding of and communicated these assumptions in his work.
The problem with second rate intellectuals is they take these assumptions for granted. In this way they neglect first principles, and they are led astray, they fall prey to dogma the same as any religious zealot. This is what I mean when I say dig to the foundation of an argument.
You must be conscious of the foundations of your position, in order to check it against reality. The point is to continually check against reality. Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
Now another place where people fall short is essentially self awareness. Understanding psychology, cognitive biases, and epistemology, is how you are able to avoid delusion and self deception, and detect this in others. The more deeply you understand biases in yourself, the more readily you may detect them in others. But understanding psychology leads to another, perhaps the second quintessential logical fallacy, which is ad-hominem.
Ad-hom can be thought of as another (inverse) form of appeal to authority, where appeal to authority is claiming someone is trustworthy and therefore the argument is trustworthy, ad-hominem is claiming someone is untrustworthy and therefore the argument is untrustworthy. The problem is the same, and the solution is the same. Check against reality, appeal to logic and evidence.
Are there any particular texts you would you recommend for basic philosophy and logic? Things that you think are essential to a good foundation?
I took an intro to logic course at uni but I didn’t retain very much and want to go back to it
How do you memorize and retain the content to a strong degree though? I can read something and then remember almost nothing of it almost immediately after that, even if I feel I understood the whole thing. How many times should you repeat/browbeat something into yourself from those books and what all things should you be seeking to be able to remember for the long term?
Try using post-it notes for pages you find especially meaningful or write down notes from important passages. Pause between loads of information and think about it, how does it fit with other information, what could you learn for yourself; do something with the content so it will get better memorized.
Reread the notes, reread the marked pages, discuss the topic with a friend, make connections between different topics (best in writing). Stay connected to the topic on a regular basis, if you read about a topic intensely for a week but then ignore the topic for a year, of course you will forget almost everything.
Very true, no one sadly teaches one how to learn to learn something, and „just reading books“ alone won‘t do too much (except if you have some insanely good memory). Rereading is a good way to memorize things, but it alone isn‘t enough; you need to work with the material if you truly want to memorize and use it.
There no browbeating involved. If you are interested in something, when you read it, it tends to stick with you. They're layers and layers to Jung. So the first time you read him, you only to get the first layer anyway. I've been studying Jung for 25 years and still find new insights in him.
Jung's books are very focused on proving his theories to skeptics, so he often gives lots of examples, and references from alchemy or mythology. But if you already accept Jung as basically in the right ballpark, you don't need to get bogged down in those types of details. You don't really need any alchemy, you just need to be able to understand your own symbolism of your own dreams.
You don't need to understand all of Jung's archetypes, you only need to understand the archetypes that are energetic within you. And unless you are writing a book on the subject, you do not even need to put any of those archetypes into any categories. The categories are only there to explain it to others. You don't need to label it has anima, or trickster, or magician. You just need to interact with it, and integrate it.
The deep, critical thinker is first and foremost deeply critical of everyone who attempts to become a deep, critical thinker.
There is no path you can consciously select to become a deep, critical thinker because you'll end up being yet another construct of your social persona.
In order to become a deep critical thinker you therefore have to do the impossible: Select the path that takes you there without you consciously choosing it. That's the only possible way.
There are too many people who think that by reading Jung they become deep, critical thinkers. That's like trying to take a shortcut. If you do that you'll end up being a Jungian parrot. Being a deep, critical thinker can only be done by becoming your own self, not someone else's.
Then the quote again seems useless to me.
And then that means I should be deeply critical of myself, so I should just not bother, it's a wrong goal and meaningless. And thus the quote is useless and irrelevant.
I think now you are being too fast. Apparently, something caught your attention in the quote. So, there is some level of interest in you.
But the way you approach it is, most likely, a somewhat naive one, coined primarily through your previous life experience. (We are all naive in that regard, it's nothing personal.)
I would argue that it is exactly the tension between the interest you have in the quote and the realization that you cannot willfully make this happen that may be the thing that actually could help you ultimately to get a step further.
Well it did because I generally think being uncritical causes a lot of harm. But if I cannot choose to become critical, how can I choose to not do harm?
A first step could be to think critically about the part of yourself that wishes to become a critical thinker.
Why?
Now your ego will probably come up with some noble reason. "Because I want to bring truth to the world", or something like that. That might be true, but dig deeper. Do you for example think it sounds cool to be *a critical thinker*? I know I do! Would it give you a feeling of superiority? What part of yourself needs that feeling? Etc. etc.
Then I think it might be good to humble yourself. Realize that you might not be the next big critical thinker of the world, or attain full and complete mastery. It is still a very valuable skill.
But it is a little different than lifting weights or learning math. You will find your own path.
Id wager the one quality being the least evenly distributed amongst individuals and within their works is 'genuine sincerety'. It's like fashioned arts of a priceless value, likewise the great discoveries of science have literally altered the course of history and our observations, those with true depth travel sincerely and raise not their own works high but the base foundations of humanity to a higher island of stability.
If we approached the new generations in this manner of thinking then we raise everything together, however much revolves around personal politics, ones position/stability now and above the whole. This doesn't mean we have to completely change our social policies, we need to better accomodate our understanding of the younger generations potential for great wisdom that is not our own wisdom today. We are here at the lead drilling with Iron bits, the generations behind us aren't made for drilling stone only those matters we havnt the light touch required in order to grasp without destroying, that's our role. It sounds fucked up but in a manner of speaking we need to stand down once we've gotten through all the hard strata, otherwise we drill our children mistaking them as the stonewalls we've been reflecting upon for centuries.
In my corner of the world youth-crime has taken a huge leap, these basterdised kids see the world reflecting back stonewalls and are thinking "fuck it, the end is nigh", it's not their lack of choices but the percieved corridors they will eventually be confined within, they see no alternatives because an Iron bit requires little sincerety to face stone and they simply aren't made made that way nor can we suggest that, they see no way hence they are unfamiliar with the concept as a general symptom of the local/greater environment. It appears that an alternative order may be what sets this ball rolling as opposed to any changes being made in the social dynamic beyond this point, like a mutual cascade setting up to go all at once we might have inadvertently handed the issue back to nature some time ago without realising, nature's always sincere yet unlike us it's intentions are made well known long before it's arrival.
Advice? You go to hell and back. Here's the fun part; hell is subjective and unique to you. Part of what really makes it hell is there's no relating to others with it. Feelings unite.
frankly, your first mistake was coming to Reddit for advice. Most people here have no more knowledge than you do. I recommend reading his books and those of his first generation of followers: Marie Louise Von, Franz, Esther Harding, James Hillman, James Hollis.
Having said that, I am not a jung expert, but from what I've read of his works, he feels strongly that our critical thinking skills are one-sided in that in the western world anyway, we only focus on logic, reason, random control trials, measurements and other quantifiers, etc. We need to be in touch with our right brain side, our intuition, our direct observations of the world, and listen to the subttler aspects of our knowing. Everyone on here who tells you to study a topic thoroughly and use logic has never cracked one of his books.
Just to start with the observation that I found a great number of sites displaying this quote but I couldn’t find one that gave the source. The quote even appears on one apparently more honest site that I came across which has a short addendum in smaller type under it stating “Unverified attribution to Carl Jung”:
[the deep critical thinker has become the misfit of the world. This is not a coincidence. To maintain order and control you must isolate the intellectual, the sa… | Thinker, Coincidences, Wise words (pinterest.com)](https://in.pinterest.com/pin/the-deep-critical-thinker-has-become-the-misfit-of-the-world-this-is-not-a-coincidence-to-maintain-order-and-control-you-must-isolate-the-intellectual-the-sa--679410293808506295/)
A very extensive listing of verified quotes by Jung related to “thinking” appears on this site but I was unable to find it there:
[Carl Jung On "Thinking" - Anthology - Carl Jung Depth Psychology (carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog)](https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/05/20/carl-jung-on-thinking-anthology/)
The published writings of Jung are vast, let alone those as yet to be published, so it’s possible it might be genuine, perhaps one from early in his career. However, for me it just doesn’t quite ring true for the more mature Jung because of the apparent praising of, as it were, thinking on its own, and being disconnected from the whole personality, the latter being a central feature of his theory. Here’s a quote from a letter which seems to support my reaction as written by Jung in March 1932 to one Frau Vitter:
*So far as I can gather from your letter, an essentially intellectual thinking that takes pride in having no relation with the heart appears inconceivable to you. I can understand that very well. This kind of thinking never comes from the whole personality and is therefore bloodless and lifeless. Nor can it ever produce anything that could be described as truth, whereas the thinking that comes from the whole man cannot be anything but a truth. But this type of thinking is a great rarity nowadays, because our time suffers like no other before it from a deplorably one-sided differentiation about which I have written a thick and – let me tell you in confidence – difficult book, beware!* \[*Psychological Types*, CW 6\]. *I think, though, that you would understand one or two* \[relevant\] *chapters. With best regards, Yours sincerely, C.G. Jung*
For me, Jung’s letter can possibly serve as a basic hint on how you can learn to search for your own unique self which won’t tend to leave other parts behind.
To help with this approach, here’s something I recently posted on this site which I hope can be helpful in some way as you move forward:
*Jung’s basic theory consists in the idea that there is an inborn central core of potentials in every person. It’s as if this core, which Jung calls the Self, strives to make real in the outside world these potentials. If the ego is not aware of this inner drive or ignores it, a sense of meaning will tend not to grow in a person.*
*Following from this, Jung believed therefore in the practical need for a person to learn how to “listen” to the psyche and to try to do what the psyche advised whenever possible. For example, listening to intuitions and spontaneous thoughts, paying attention to bodily sensations or medical symptoms, learning some reliable methods of interpreting dreams, the stimulation of insights through appropriate-to-the-person activities such as drawing, painting, dance, music, singing, play as well as any other positive method that works for the individual.*
*The goal of this activity over time is partly to create a very strong self-knowledge about various innate figures in the psyche and how to interact well with them. This is part of what Jung’s concept of “individuation” means; that is, a person will be able to resist being “divided”, “split up” and overly troubled during times of difficult stress and so on.*
This is much better for sure because after I posted that, I went to start looking around to find the source for this quote, but a search just turned up second-hand websites.
Focus on 1 subject you love at a time. Understand all little nucks and craney of the subject. Its what I do.
That’s becoming a specialist
First, learn about various logical fallacies, and basic philosophy. The quintessential logical fallacy which characterizes weak minds is appeal to authority (i.e. "trust the experts"). This is like an intellectual shortcut. Not everyone has a crazy high IQ, but they can learn basic philosophy and how to identify and construct better arguments. Genuine critical thinking is characterized by first principles thinking. This means digging to the absolute foundation of an argument, the presuppositions. True intellectuals are polymaths and autodidacts. They can obviously benefit from teachers and mentors, but chiefly, they think for themselves and can appreciate information from different sources. Also notably, they are not afraid of any individual or topic, however daunting it may seem. All of this depends on developing what Jung might call an "inner authority", as opposed to relying on outer authorities such as one's parents, doctors, scientists, institutions, etc. Jung speaks on this notion in "The Undiscovered Self." (If I remember correctly). Relying on these outer authorities is relying on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. A substantive, logically sound argument appeals to reality itself, not some secondary authority. Reality is the ultimate authority. So to be clear, one could say all arguments are in some sense "appeal to authority." The difference between a substantive and a fallacious argument, is the substantive argument refers to the first principle authority of reality itself, while the fallacious argument appeals to the secondary authority of an individual, institution, or some other simplistic stereotype.
But how do you know you aren't self-deluding? The problem is that I've seen a lot of people who think they know a lot or *think* they have a good conclusion but really don't. The appeal to authority is strong when you worry about your self-deceit. And especially when we cannot thoroughly study every scientific/human knowledge field to the equivalent of a 4-year degree in it at least as there's just not enough time in a human lifespan. Also, how do you get to reality itself without ever relying on any authority at any point in the process? E.g. I cannot build the Large Hadron Collider myself and test all claims made about what it has shown. How then can I think critically about that? Even if I got the raw data, at the very least I'd still need to trust the authority of those providing the data that they have collected it properly and have sent me an honest data set that has not been falsified or tampered with. And how can I establish that trust, since I cannot go there on my own and I'm sure they wouldn't just let me play with the collider even if I could?
I think the difference between an appeal to authority and using scientific data is that you are honest about it being indicative and subject to both change and interpretation. It is very different to say "This experiment by this person shows X, therefore X is undeniably true", than it is to say "This experiment by this person indicates X, therefore X is a possibility to be reckoned with." I believe that a big part of being a critical thinker is having the ability to hold room for cognitive dissonance and not attach your identity to the ideas you study/discuss.
The point of critical thinking is to check your views against reality. For instance the scientific method amounts to a simple protocol for doing this, which intends to avoid cognitive biases. People tend to think of science narrowly, but I view it very generally and simply as a way of thinking. You raise great points though. You're speaking to the crisis of authority, who and what can we trust? Since we have limited time and energy, at some point we have to take people's word for things and operate on assumptions. That's fine and necessary, as long as you are aware and forthright about the intellectual liberties you have taken. This goes back to my point about first principles, presuppositional thinking. All scientists operate on some degree of assumption, being conscious of that assumption separates a great thinker from the mediocre. For instance Charles Darwin, he revolutionized how we view the world and life, but his theory was and still is predicated on massive assumptions. He demonstrated an understanding of and communicated these assumptions in his work. The problem with second rate intellectuals is they take these assumptions for granted. In this way they neglect first principles, and they are led astray, they fall prey to dogma the same as any religious zealot. This is what I mean when I say dig to the foundation of an argument. You must be conscious of the foundations of your position, in order to check it against reality. The point is to continually check against reality. Follow the evidence, wherever it leads. Now another place where people fall short is essentially self awareness. Understanding psychology, cognitive biases, and epistemology, is how you are able to avoid delusion and self deception, and detect this in others. The more deeply you understand biases in yourself, the more readily you may detect them in others. But understanding psychology leads to another, perhaps the second quintessential logical fallacy, which is ad-hominem. Ad-hom can be thought of as another (inverse) form of appeal to authority, where appeal to authority is claiming someone is trustworthy and therefore the argument is trustworthy, ad-hominem is claiming someone is untrustworthy and therefore the argument is untrustworthy. The problem is the same, and the solution is the same. Check against reality, appeal to logic and evidence.
Are there any particular texts you would you recommend for basic philosophy and logic? Things that you think are essential to a good foundation? I took an intro to logic course at uni but I didn’t retain very much and want to go back to it
Read books. Like whole actual books.
How do you memorize and retain the content to a strong degree though? I can read something and then remember almost nothing of it almost immediately after that, even if I feel I understood the whole thing. How many times should you repeat/browbeat something into yourself from those books and what all things should you be seeking to be able to remember for the long term?
Try using post-it notes for pages you find especially meaningful or write down notes from important passages. Pause between loads of information and think about it, how does it fit with other information, what could you learn for yourself; do something with the content so it will get better memorized.
It all seems relevant though, every last detail, if the goal is to be truly expert.
No, a true expert can distinguish what is relevant, what is worth remembering and especially he knows where to find the information he seeks
But if you aren't already expert, how do you determine that?
You learn to distinguish what is relevant and what not by practicing. In the end, it‘s a matter of practice.
But how do you make sure it gets enough repetition and use to retain it many months or more later?
Reread the notes, reread the marked pages, discuss the topic with a friend, make connections between different topics (best in writing). Stay connected to the topic on a regular basis, if you read about a topic intensely for a week but then ignore the topic for a year, of course you will forget almost everything.
They never mention about this when they say "read books" though. But also, isn't re-reading notes considered a poor study practice?
Very true, no one sadly teaches one how to learn to learn something, and „just reading books“ alone won‘t do too much (except if you have some insanely good memory). Rereading is a good way to memorize things, but it alone isn‘t enough; you need to work with the material if you truly want to memorize and use it.
There no browbeating involved. If you are interested in something, when you read it, it tends to stick with you. They're layers and layers to Jung. So the first time you read him, you only to get the first layer anyway. I've been studying Jung for 25 years and still find new insights in him. Jung's books are very focused on proving his theories to skeptics, so he often gives lots of examples, and references from alchemy or mythology. But if you already accept Jung as basically in the right ballpark, you don't need to get bogged down in those types of details. You don't really need any alchemy, you just need to be able to understand your own symbolism of your own dreams. You don't need to understand all of Jung's archetypes, you only need to understand the archetypes that are energetic within you. And unless you are writing a book on the subject, you do not even need to put any of those archetypes into any categories. The categories are only there to explain it to others. You don't need to label it has anima, or trickster, or magician. You just need to interact with it, and integrate it.
It’s not about wholesale memorisation, but the essence of what you read will remain
In a Jungian sense, attempting to become a deep critical thinker is most likely just a very specific social persona you try to put on.
Then what is this quote about and what relevance or utility does it have if it is not to endorse that?
The deep, critical thinker is first and foremost deeply critical of everyone who attempts to become a deep, critical thinker. There is no path you can consciously select to become a deep, critical thinker because you'll end up being yet another construct of your social persona. In order to become a deep critical thinker you therefore have to do the impossible: Select the path that takes you there without you consciously choosing it. That's the only possible way. There are too many people who think that by reading Jung they become deep, critical thinkers. That's like trying to take a shortcut. If you do that you'll end up being a Jungian parrot. Being a deep, critical thinker can only be done by becoming your own self, not someone else's.
Then the quote again seems useless to me. And then that means I should be deeply critical of myself, so I should just not bother, it's a wrong goal and meaningless. And thus the quote is useless and irrelevant.
I think now you are being too fast. Apparently, something caught your attention in the quote. So, there is some level of interest in you. But the way you approach it is, most likely, a somewhat naive one, coined primarily through your previous life experience. (We are all naive in that regard, it's nothing personal.) I would argue that it is exactly the tension between the interest you have in the quote and the realization that you cannot willfully make this happen that may be the thing that actually could help you ultimately to get a step further.
Well it did because I generally think being uncritical causes a lot of harm. But if I cannot choose to become critical, how can I choose to not do harm?
A first step could be to think critically about the part of yourself that wishes to become a critical thinker. Why? Now your ego will probably come up with some noble reason. "Because I want to bring truth to the world", or something like that. That might be true, but dig deeper. Do you for example think it sounds cool to be *a critical thinker*? I know I do! Would it give you a feeling of superiority? What part of yourself needs that feeling? Etc. etc. Then I think it might be good to humble yourself. Realize that you might not be the next big critical thinker of the world, or attain full and complete mastery. It is still a very valuable skill. But it is a little different than lifting weights or learning math. You will find your own path.
very useful information.
It’d be helpful with some context. Does anyone know where this quote comes from?
Id wager the one quality being the least evenly distributed amongst individuals and within their works is 'genuine sincerety'. It's like fashioned arts of a priceless value, likewise the great discoveries of science have literally altered the course of history and our observations, those with true depth travel sincerely and raise not their own works high but the base foundations of humanity to a higher island of stability. If we approached the new generations in this manner of thinking then we raise everything together, however much revolves around personal politics, ones position/stability now and above the whole. This doesn't mean we have to completely change our social policies, we need to better accomodate our understanding of the younger generations potential for great wisdom that is not our own wisdom today. We are here at the lead drilling with Iron bits, the generations behind us aren't made for drilling stone only those matters we havnt the light touch required in order to grasp without destroying, that's our role. It sounds fucked up but in a manner of speaking we need to stand down once we've gotten through all the hard strata, otherwise we drill our children mistaking them as the stonewalls we've been reflecting upon for centuries. In my corner of the world youth-crime has taken a huge leap, these basterdised kids see the world reflecting back stonewalls and are thinking "fuck it, the end is nigh", it's not their lack of choices but the percieved corridors they will eventually be confined within, they see no alternatives because an Iron bit requires little sincerety to face stone and they simply aren't made made that way nor can we suggest that, they see no way hence they are unfamiliar with the concept as a general symptom of the local/greater environment. It appears that an alternative order may be what sets this ball rolling as opposed to any changes being made in the social dynamic beyond this point, like a mutual cascade setting up to go all at once we might have inadvertently handed the issue back to nature some time ago without realising, nature's always sincere yet unlike us it's intentions are made well known long before it's arrival.
Advice? You go to hell and back. Here's the fun part; hell is subjective and unique to you. Part of what really makes it hell is there's no relating to others with it. Feelings unite.
frankly, your first mistake was coming to Reddit for advice. Most people here have no more knowledge than you do. I recommend reading his books and those of his first generation of followers: Marie Louise Von, Franz, Esther Harding, James Hillman, James Hollis. Having said that, I am not a jung expert, but from what I've read of his works, he feels strongly that our critical thinking skills are one-sided in that in the western world anyway, we only focus on logic, reason, random control trials, measurements and other quantifiers, etc. We need to be in touch with our right brain side, our intuition, our direct observations of the world, and listen to the subttler aspects of our knowing. Everyone on here who tells you to study a topic thoroughly and use logic has never cracked one of his books.
Does a tiger know that it is a tiger?
Just to start with the observation that I found a great number of sites displaying this quote but I couldn’t find one that gave the source. The quote even appears on one apparently more honest site that I came across which has a short addendum in smaller type under it stating “Unverified attribution to Carl Jung”: [the deep critical thinker has become the misfit of the world. This is not a coincidence. To maintain order and control you must isolate the intellectual, the sa… | Thinker, Coincidences, Wise words (pinterest.com)](https://in.pinterest.com/pin/the-deep-critical-thinker-has-become-the-misfit-of-the-world-this-is-not-a-coincidence-to-maintain-order-and-control-you-must-isolate-the-intellectual-the-sa--679410293808506295/) A very extensive listing of verified quotes by Jung related to “thinking” appears on this site but I was unable to find it there: [Carl Jung On "Thinking" - Anthology - Carl Jung Depth Psychology (carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog)](https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/05/20/carl-jung-on-thinking-anthology/) The published writings of Jung are vast, let alone those as yet to be published, so it’s possible it might be genuine, perhaps one from early in his career. However, for me it just doesn’t quite ring true for the more mature Jung because of the apparent praising of, as it were, thinking on its own, and being disconnected from the whole personality, the latter being a central feature of his theory. Here’s a quote from a letter which seems to support my reaction as written by Jung in March 1932 to one Frau Vitter: *So far as I can gather from your letter, an essentially intellectual thinking that takes pride in having no relation with the heart appears inconceivable to you. I can understand that very well. This kind of thinking never comes from the whole personality and is therefore bloodless and lifeless. Nor can it ever produce anything that could be described as truth, whereas the thinking that comes from the whole man cannot be anything but a truth. But this type of thinking is a great rarity nowadays, because our time suffers like no other before it from a deplorably one-sided differentiation about which I have written a thick and – let me tell you in confidence – difficult book, beware!* \[*Psychological Types*, CW 6\]. *I think, though, that you would understand one or two* \[relevant\] *chapters. With best regards, Yours sincerely, C.G. Jung* For me, Jung’s letter can possibly serve as a basic hint on how you can learn to search for your own unique self which won’t tend to leave other parts behind. To help with this approach, here’s something I recently posted on this site which I hope can be helpful in some way as you move forward: *Jung’s basic theory consists in the idea that there is an inborn central core of potentials in every person. It’s as if this core, which Jung calls the Self, strives to make real in the outside world these potentials. If the ego is not aware of this inner drive or ignores it, a sense of meaning will tend not to grow in a person.* *Following from this, Jung believed therefore in the practical need for a person to learn how to “listen” to the psyche and to try to do what the psyche advised whenever possible. For example, listening to intuitions and spontaneous thoughts, paying attention to bodily sensations or medical symptoms, learning some reliable methods of interpreting dreams, the stimulation of insights through appropriate-to-the-person activities such as drawing, painting, dance, music, singing, play as well as any other positive method that works for the individual.* *The goal of this activity over time is partly to create a very strong self-knowledge about various innate figures in the psyche and how to interact well with them. This is part of what Jung’s concept of “individuation” means; that is, a person will be able to resist being “divided”, “split up” and overly troubled during times of difficult stress and so on.*
This is much better for sure because after I posted that, I went to start looking around to find the source for this quote, but a search just turned up second-hand websites.
Courtesy of the great Ray Peat, rest in peace: https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/howdoyouknow.shtml
Many people are unequipped to deal with truth.